224 replies to this topic

[ducky]

Can you scan and upload that mailer? According to his website, he only has the endorsement of Former Folsom Police Chief Sam Spiegel.

Thing is, the flyer is put out by BizPAC and says at the bottom, "Not authorized by a candidate or candidate committee." It shows a photo of Mr. Starsky and a Folsom PD officer, standing in front of a Folsom PD car, with the caption, "You can count on Jeff to keep your neighborhoods and schools safe. - Sheriff Scott Jones." It is kind of misleading which is probably why the president of the FPOA got calls and felt he needed to set the record straight.

The other photo shows him in a vest standing in front of the Folsom Dam with a quote from him saying he's brought new business to Folsom and helped existing ones grow and prosper. It's the same photo that used to be on the Region Builders Website for their endorsement of him. regionbuilders.com/jeff-starsky/

[Robert Giacometti]

OK, I have contacted a friend who may be able to help. If we are to bring in the media there needs to be a comprehensive list of information to which they can be directed. Robert, anyone, can you help? While I'm totally willing to get the ball rolling, I'm going to need some assistance with this.

Of course I'll help....you can call me at the office if need be.

[Robert Giacometti]

I wonder how Ernie feels about all of this? If Starsky can claim to direct votes toward Roger if he played nice (as mentioned in a previous post), does Ernie want Starsky out and could help Roger get votes? Or is Ernie afraid of pissing off Starsky now that he is probably funneling votes toward Ernie?

I'm not speaking for Ernie, but he has his OWN campaign to run and election to win. I'm fairly confident Ernie will win one of the 2 seats, but with elections and politics one never really knows, so he may NOT be endorsing anyone.

[camay2327]

I sent a request to channel 10 and asked if an investigative reporter could check this out. This was a a week or so ago and I never heard back from anyone.

[Robert Giacometti]

Thing is, the flyer is put out by BizPAC and says at the bottom, "Not authorized by a candidate or candidate committee." It shows a photo of Mr. Starsky and a Folsom PD officer, standing in front of a Folsom PD car, with the caption, "You can count on Jeff to keep your neighborhoods and schools safe. - Sheriff Scott Jones." It is kind of misleading which is probably why the president of the FPOA got calls and felt he needed to set the record straight.

The other photo shows him in a vest standing in front of the Folsom Dam with a quote from him saying he's brought new business to Folsom and helped existing ones grow and prosper. It's the same photo that used to be on the Region Builders Website for their endorsement of him. regionbuilders.com/jeff-starsky/

So our Fine City of Folsom is hiring the same organization that is affliated with BizPAc for Economic Development and Tourism, that is putting out these flyers?

Lets also not forget that the City of Folsom is also only charging a $1 per year for this same organization for office rent, while raising fees on at risk Children to play youth sports and cutting funding for at risk children's after school programs AND charging non profits MORE to use the Community Center for their fund raisers!

[camay2327]

These are the areas that I feel are illegal and have double 4' X 8' signs. I am sure there must be more.
I have photos of all but the last one.

1. Iron Point, East of Sharif Jewlers, across from outlets.
2. Iron Point, East of Folsom High School
3. Iron Point, near McAdoo Drive
4. Intersection of Iron Point and East Bidwell
5. Sibley, between Blue Ravine and Glenn
6. Quick Quack – Blue Ravine and Prairie City
7. Folsom Auburn Road at Marietta (Single Sign around 19 foot in the air)
8. SE corner of E. Bidwell at Creekside
9. Zittle Farm on Folsom Auburn road (Single signs buy way up high)
10. E. Natomas between Blue Ravine & Empire Ranch, 2 sets of back/back signs.

[Stop South of 50]

So our Fine City of Folsom is hiring the same organization that is affliated with BizPAc for Economic Development and Tourism, that is putting out these flyers?

Lets also not forget that the City of Folsom is also only charging a $1 per year for this same organization for office rent, while raising fees on at risk Children to play youth sports and cutting funding for at risk children's after school programs AND charging non profits MORE to use the Community Center for their fund raisers!

Not to mention numerous unbuilt park sites due to funds not yet available, or an empty site on ER Rd where a fire station was promised to increase coverage (aren't response times lacking in the city of Folsom???).

[Robert Giacometti]

Not to mention numerous unbuilt park sites due to funds not yet available, or an empty site on ER Rd where a fire station was promised to increase coverage (aren't response times lacking in the city of Folsom???).

These are legitimate concerns and need to be addressed.

I was trying to make people aware that the organization the City is hiring to do its economic Development and Tourism, is the under the same parent organization who is putting ut these misleading flyers. This same organization is also getting a sweetheart deal regarding the fees they pay for rent, while other worthy causes and nonprofits are having their fees increased!

This is very troubling to me. The lines of objectivity can get very blurry, rather quickly when these types of deals are made! If someone wants to make an arguement that this is in the best interests of The City to do things this way, I'm all ears to hear why!

[ducky]

Maybe someone smarter than I am can clear this up for me. I thought campaign contributions were limited to $150 each donor. I found this link from HDR Inc. PAC, in Texas, that shows $198 was contributed to Mr. Starsky in June 15, 2012. It's not a huge amount over, but everyone should play by the rules. Maybe he sent some back. I don't know. I don't see it listed on his Form 460.
http://204.65.203.5/public/538831.pdf. HDR Inc. is in the business of construction services.

Also, Region Builders had an event to raise money for Mr. Starsky. regionbuilders.com/councilmember-jeff-starsky-event/ trying to raise $99 each from its members.

BizPAC gives money to influence the outcome of elections on behalf of the business community.
I just read recently that building South of 50 may start as early as 2014.
I've seen how a resident who brought a very, very simple concern before the council was dismissed.

I don't have anything against Mr. Starsky personally, I really don't, but, as a resident, how can I add all these things up and feel like it is me he will be representing? The sidewalks in my neighborhood are in need of repair. The recent street repaving (slurry) isn't holding up. Utility bills have gone up. City services are being reduced.

[Robert Giacometti]

Maybe someone smarter than I am can clear this up for me. I thought campaign contributions were limited to $150 each donor. I found this link from HDR Inc. PAC, in Texas, that shows $198 was contributed to Mr. Starsky in June 15, 2012. It's not a huge amount over, but everyone should play by the rules.

I don't have anything against Mr. Starsky personally, I really don't, but, as a resident, how can I add all these things up and feel like it is me he will be representing? The sidewalks in my neighborhood are in need of repair. The recent street repaving (slurry) isn't holding up. Utility bills have gone up. City services are being reduced.

Good find on that contribution.

Did you see the financial report presented at the City council meeeting the other night regarding the water & sewer funds? I thought BOTH included a $3 million INCREASE in capital improvements that they are claiming is for deferred maintaintence. I don't trust them for a second given all the capital costs that are needed for infrastructure S50.

When a sitting Council member makes a reference, at a televised Council meeting, to an ordinance section 2C that doesn't exist and the rest of the Council members and CM and City attorney say nothing about this, its rather clear this city has some major problems going on behind the scences!

[folsom500]

I think I have listed it before and suspect that the Starsky guy is referring to the formal FMC as referenced in the document that is on the Folsom Website that we have been using - http://www.folsom.ca...p?BlobID=17411.

On the full FMC there is a section C - but it is not 2c as the man suggested - see http://codepublishing.com/CA/folsom/ Title 17.59.030 General provisions and go to section 13 C where is says :

13. Non-commercial sign(s) on private property, not within or over a public right-of-way unless authorized pursuant to Section 17.59.030(D), or over the roofline of any building and outside of any clear vision triangle as follows:

a. For residential property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land with a maximum combined sign area of 10 square feet and a maximum height of 6 feet.

b. For commercial property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land provided all such signs do not exceed a maximum combined sign area of 40 square feet and a maximum height of 10 feet.

c. Campaign signs pertaining to an election to any public office or ballot measure may be erected not earlier than 60 days prior to the election and shall be removed within 7 days following said election;

--______-_____--------

I do notice the there are parts of the FMC that were updated as of Setember 12 , 2012 but do not know which ones.

I also do not know the date nor who wrote the document from the Folsom City site that we
have been using, but it is very clear on the limitation and was specifically written for this years election period.

I was also vetted by Pete after a couple of conversations and emails.

I find Starsky's comments about it being a free speech issue to be totally Bulls----- that would mean I could run for office and put up 100 Sq Ft signs...
... and as you have said- if it is exempt why not just say that to all of us that have sent emails and called both Pete and Starsky...

In a council meeting when the council member makes his comments after the speaker - can the person or another speak to his comments ?

I have all of my emails to Pete and Starsky on file so if you need them, I will send them.

[tessieca]

Look at the structure of signs exempted from other FMC regulations:

13. Non-commercial sign(s) on private property, not within or over a public right-of-way unless authorized pursuant to Section 17.59.030(D), or over the roofline of any building and outside of any clear vision triangle as follows:

a. For residential property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land with a maximum combined sign area of 10 square feet and a maximum height of 6 feet.

b. For commercial property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land provided all such signs do not exceed a maximum combined sign area of 40 square feet and a maximum height of 10 feet.

c. Campaign signs pertaining to an election to any public office or ballot measure may be erected not earlier than 60 days prior to the election and shall be removed within 7 days following said election;

===========================================================================================
I think what Jeff is saying is that the specifications in subsections a. and b. are not included in subsection c. This could very probably lead a court or other interpreter to believe that the size limitation was expressly not intended to apply to subsection c. for campaign signs.

There are a lot of people spending a lot of time on what seems like are relatively insignificant issue. If you can't win an election on the merits, you pick on the signs and contributors?

[camay2327]

Look at the structure of signs exempted from other FMC regulations:

13. Non-commercial sign(s) on private property, not within or over a public right-of-way unless authorized pursuant to Section 17.59.030(D), or over the roofline of any building and outside of any clear vision triangle as follows:

a. For residential property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land with a maximum combined sign area of 10 square feet and a maximum height of 6 feet.

b. For commercial property, 1 or more signs are permitted on any 1 parcel of land provided all such signs do not exceed a maximum combined sign area of 40 square feet and a maximum height of 10 feet.

c. Campaign signs pertaining to an election to any public office or ballot measure may be erected not earlier than 60 days prior to the election and shall be removed within 7 days following said election;

===========================================================================================
I think what Jeff is saying is that the specifications in subsections a. and b. are not included in subsection c. This could very probably lead a court or other interpreter to believe that the size limitation was expressly not intended to apply to subsection c. for campaign signs.

There are a lot of people spending a lot of time on what seems like are relatively insignificant issue. If you can't win an election on the merits, you pick on the signs and contributors?

I think that para c. is explaining paras a & b and saying the signs can be put up 60 prior and taken down no longer than 7 days after the election. Para c doesn't say anything about the size or height of the signs. No matter how you look at it, the signs located in the areas I listed are illegal.

The reason it could be a big thing is that someone running against him may not have the funding to put up large double (illegal) signs and that would give Starsky the edge. I mean
he will win re-election anyway so why cheat.

[tessieca]

The problem is, Cal, that statutory interpretation rules would apply to say that the legislators obviously knew how to limit signs when they intended to do so, and since they did not do so for campaign signs there is no size limitation. I'm not saying that is what was intended, just that the rules of statutory interpretation could be applied the way Jeff is applying them.